6
6 Importance of Transfer Pricing Since a change in transfer prices can result in a change in profits reported in a particular tax jurisdiction, tax authorities around the world have made transfer pricing a priority. Recent comments out of the U.S. suggest that transfer pricing may be more closely scrutinized in the future. While not addressing transfer pricing specifically, comments from the U.S. suggest that several tax loopholes may be restricted or shut down.

10
10 For transfer pricing issues, the main body of the legislation is found in Section 247 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) and the CRA’s guidelines as set forth in the Information Circular (“IC”) 87-2R. For the purpose of customs valuation, the applicable sections of the Customs Act are sections 44-57. The CBSA’s D-series memoranda also provide additional information with respect to the application of the valuation rules. Canada’s Regulatory Environment (cont’d)

11
11 IC87-2R addresses the issue of differences with the customs act:  “The methods for determining value for duty under the current provisions of the Customs Act resemble those outlined in this circular. However, differences do remain. The Department is not obliged to accept the value reported for duty when considering the income tax implications of a non-arm’s length importation.” Canada’s Regulatory Environment (cont’d)

14
14 Appeals vs. Competent Authority Reasons to go to Appeals before Competent Authority: if no double tax exposure due to losses that will not be utilized Small amounts Quicker resolution since no government to government negotiations No “red flags” to foreign government of other issues

16
16 Competent Authority Process Notification to the Competent Authority Notification is the taxpayer’s responsibility Must have a tax treaty with the foreign country. Using economists, CA will prepare a position paper and send to the foreign government.

17
17 Competent Authority Process (cont’d) If agreed to by the foreign CA - adjustment processed. Where there is disagreement, the case is negotiated. Taxpayers can accept or reject the settlement and go to Appeals if they have filed a Notice of Objection.

18
18 Quality of documentation Availability of economic data Transfer pricing is not an exact science Materiality of adjustments Similar facts and circumstances in other cases Policy decisions Factors in Reaching a Negotiated Settlement

19
19 Treaty Time Limitations Time Limits for CRA to raise TP adjustments 5 to 7 years limits in many of Canada’s treaties. i) CRA cannot raise transfer pricing beyond specified time limit ii) Some controversial situations arise when CRA ignores time limit (e.g. foreign entity in loss position) Canada- U.S. Treaty does not prevent CRA from reassessing beyond 6 year notification period. As double tax may arise in both scenarios above, recourse is available under Article IX(4) and/or MAP.

20
20 Assessments Beyond the 6 Year Notification If notification is not given to the IRS within 6 years from the end of the year in which the adjustment relates, the IRS will not have to provide relief from double taxation. In the majority of cases, double taxation would be the result. Under section 152(4)(b) of the ITA the CRA has 7 years to reassess international transactions. A reassessment can be issued in the seventh year after the expiration of the 6 year notification period provided by the Canada-US treaty.

21
21 Assessments (cont’d) In effect, Paragraph 4 of Article IX states that if the taxpayer is not notified of a proposal by the CRA within the six year period, CRA may provide relief and not proceed with the adjustment if it would result in double taxation. CRA can technically proceed in adjustments without further consideration and has previously done so BUT this is not a certainty.

22
22 Assessments (cont’d) Taxpayers should be alert and request in writing that a proposal be issued, prior to the expiration of the treaty notification period in order to protect itself of the right to relief from double taxation. Whether or not the CRA issues its proposal on time, the taxpayer should submit a notification to foreign competent authority to ensure its rights are protected.

23
23 Updates on Arbitration and Mediation between Canada and the U.S.

24
24 Mandatory Arbitration : OECD Model The fifth protocol amends the Mutual Agreement Procedure Article XXVI of the Canada-U.S. treaty, and puts in place a mechanism referred to as “mandatory arbitration”.

25
25 Mandatory Arbitration (cont’d) Mandatory arbitration introduced by the Protocol is not entirely taxpayer friendly. The arbitration board decides between two proposals. Once a decision by the arbitration team is rendered, and if that decision is accepted by the taxpayer, the decision is binding. The taxpayer can choose to reject the final determination of the arbitration committee and seek resolution through the judicial process.

26
26 Mandatory Arbitration (cont’d) Before one engages mandatory arbitration, three criteria must be met:  tax returns must have been filed in at least one of the two States for the taxation years involved  the case must not be considered a case that the competent authorities both agree is not suitable for arbitration  the taxpayer must agree in writing to keep all the information exchanged in the arbitration process confidential

27
27 Mandatory Arbitration (cont’d) The decision of the arbitration team is binding. The arbitration board is not subject to revision and does not need to provide an explanation for its decision. Mandatory arbitration may provide competent authorities with more incentive to arrive at a negotiated settlement.

28
28 Mandatory Arbitration (cont’d) The decision to proceed with arbitration lies in the hands of the taxpayer. Taxpayer may withdraw from competent authority consideration even if arbitration has already begun The arbitration decision must be provided in writing no later than six months following the date of the committee’s appointment. From a taxpayer’s perspective, this is very encouraging

29
29 Mandatory Arbitration – What’s New? Recent Developments On 25 November 2010, the CRA and IRS released detailed guidance in the form of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on how the arbitration process will operate December 15, 2010 official start of arbitration eligibility for many MAP files that were in inventory on December 15, 2008

30
30 Mandatory Arbitration – What’s New? November 25th MOU between CRA & IRS Provides further information regarding the process and conditions to enter into arbitration proceedings Clarifies the process for those cases that were in inventory at December 15, 2008 Confirms that Advanced Pricing Arrangements (APAs) are eligible for arbitration Describes two step process for PE cases

31
31 Mandatory Arbitration – What’s New? Early Indications are all Positive! Indications are that many older MAP files have been closed (settled) and arbitration avoided This was the treaty negotiator’s intention behind Mandatory Arbitration!

33
33 Secondary Adjustments (cont’d) Background Canadian regime is to consider a shareholder benefit to be conferred on NR parent Result: Deemed dividend and Part XIII tax payable + failure-to-withhold assessment against Canadian payer Secondary adjustment raised by audit immediately if no repatriation agreement Potential for double tax OECD silent on issue – left to each country

38
38 Audit Settlements in Transfer Pricing Cases Where audit settlement is reached, taxpayer may be asked to waive appeal rights. However taxpayer can still go to competent authority (i.e. no legislative authority to waive treaty rights). If appeal rights are waived, there is no collection deferral (be careful!). Competent authorities must ignore audit settlements and negotiate on transfer pricing principles on the actual adjustment that was made.

39
39 Assessing the same economic income to the Canadian subsidiary under a transfer pricing audit as well as the nonresident parent company under a Permanent Establishment audit. Triple tax Objective is not to double tax but to “ensure income gets taxed once” Appears to be a strategy to allow Appeals or Competent Authority the opportunity to choose what is the strongest case Current CRA Audit Trends

40
40 Conclusion Intercompany charges for goods, services and/or intangibles must be well documented. Taxpayers must ensure their transfer pricing documentation can hold up to the scrutiny of tax authorities. Many avenues exist to assist corporations in relieving themselves of potential double tax. Legislation is rapidly changing with an opportunity for corporations to benefit from new rules.